You want all of us to change to your skin choice then ? So its you thats wrong then
No.
The skins on the Digital Grin forums automatically adapt the color of the text to make them readable in the selected skin (user selectable near the bottom of the page).
The automatic color selection is overridden if a specific color is assigned to text by the person who posts it.
Sam posts a lot of the posts with the a color assigned to it. It happens to be the color that is the same used on the default skin, so most will not notice anything.
However, the person who uses a non-default skin will notice it though, as the text is not adapted for the skin anymore and is now displaying a text-color that can be hard to read on the background for the selected skin.
Im going to take a photo from your site 'moon river photography' without asking you & do something with it. What im going to do with it is out of your control & im not going to tell you either.
You totally cool with that then ? Tell you what mate...im bloody well not thats for sure.
Im going to take a photo from your site 'moon river photography' without asking you & do something with it. What im going to do with it is out of your control & im not going to tell you either.
You totally cool with that then ? Tell you what mate...im bloody well not thats for sure.
Reading is hard No, that's not okay. (well, technically it is fine with me but for purposes of this argument, no, it's not )
But if you put a thumbnail image on your wall, and link it back to my site, that's okay with me (Same deal I offered Sam).
I'll say it again - if you don't want your images indexed and found, then shut them off with SmugIslands. And shut external links off. And put a watermark on everything.
Reading is hard No, that's not okay. (well, technically it is fine with me but for purposes of this argument, no, it's not )
But if you put a thumbnail image on your wall, and link it back to my site, that's okay with me (Same deal I offered Sam).
I'll say it again - if you don't want your images indexed and found, then shut them off with SmugIslands. And shut external links off. And put a watermark on everything.
Choice is good
This is going in circles...lets disreguard the SM island & posting/privacy thing for a min.
They have put an image of mine without permisson on their web site & they are a company that profits from this. Its just that simple. If i copy their company logo/name & put it on my web page & make money from that web page (but link it back to them) i bet they will react like a 2 year old at a lollie counter. They would call that stealing.
This is going in circles...lets disreguard the SM island & posting/privacy thing for a min.
They have put an image of mine without permisson on their web site & they are a company that profits from this. Its just that simple. If i copy their company logo/name & put it on my web page & make money from that web page (but link it back to them) i bet they will react like a 2 year old at a lollie counter. They would call that stealing.
Let me get this straight you are upset at them for linking this thumbnail (found by searching for 'brisbane'
to this photo that you have in a public gallery, and have put in the caption, stock photography, and all sorts of keywords:
I think you should take legal action with them. And Google. And Yahoo. And all the other places that have links to your photography.
I am about ready to give up. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Andy, and others here like having whoever / whatever web sites post their copyrighted images, and don't feel there is any necessity to give approval or set terms. Fine.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Gus on the other hand doesn't like this unilateral arrangement, and would like them to not do this. No he doesn't want to jump through hoops to Opt Out! Fine.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Why doesn't Gus get what he wants? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I understand the people’s position that they like this. I understand Gus’s position. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> So far I have heard, uh, shuffle shuffle, eyes rolling, Golem like chants of we likes it, precious, precious, if you don’t like it go jump through hoops, and alter your life, sacrilege, heretic, if your not with the herd your against it. Yes, yes, I have paraphrased a little. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I have asked a VERY VERY simple question! What is the legal principle here that would allow these companies to use copyrighted material without first obtaining approval from the copyright holder? Can anyone answer this?
I'm not against search engines like Google or photography.com, really...but I do like Sam's question. It's an interesting subject (for me anyways). I know that the search engines are linking back to our site. The site is copyright-'protected'. But does that make the link protected? It's a rhetorical question, maybe a stupid one... But ANYONE can post a link anywhere and there's not much we can do to stop it. So here's another question. Obviously having images linking back to their site bothers some people...so would they feel better if it was just a text link? Is it the image being there that bothers them? I'm honestly just curious.
I am about ready to give up. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Andy, and others here like having whoever / whatever web sites post their copyrighted images, and don't feel there is any necessity to give approval or set terms. Fine.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Gus on the other hand doesn't like this unilateral arrangement, and would like them to not do this. No he doesn't want to jump through hoops to Opt Out! Fine.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Why doesn't Gus get what he wants? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I understand the people’s position that they like this. I understand Gus’s position. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> So far I have heard, uh, shuffle shuffle, eyes rolling, Golem like chants of we likes it, precious, precious, if you don’t like it go jump through hoops, and alter your life, sacrilege, heretic, if your not with the herd your against it. Yes, yes, I have paraphrased a little. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I have asked a VERY VERY simple question! What is the legal principle here that would allow these companies to use copyrighted material without first obtaining approval from the copyright holder? Can anyone answer this?
Sam<o:p></o:p>
I think this is quite a grey area. Once again, though, I'm no lawyer. Belgium seems to think that Google's indexing of newspaper articles is copyright infringement. But the courts in the US seem to agree that indexing, caching, linking, and framing of thumbnail images specifically fall under the scope of fair use, particularly when meta tags and other methods of preventing that indexing are not present on the website in question (link). I don't know if the copyright laws that this article refers to went in place in Australia, but if so, Gus may have more legal leverage as an Aussie than anyone in the US will ever have.
My assumption, Sam, is that you are a US citizen. As such, if my research is right, you don't have much of any legal recourse as caching, indexing, linking, and displaying thumbnails in a fashion you do not consent to has apparently been deemed fair use unless you take steps to prevent search engines from crawling your site.
Lets see if they have a real answer, a fuzzy wuzzy answer, or no answer.
I participate in the photography forum, Digital Grin, and we have a bit of a disagreement there involving your site, as well as others, and I am seeking your input to this discussion.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Currently you, and others, post images from various websites to your site without any approval from the image owner’s. There seems to one group who like this, and others who don’t.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> It really doesn’t matter what my likes or dislikes are, or what my position is with regard to this issue. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I have a very simple question, which no one seems able to answer.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Premise: Photography.com, (and others to be fair), are currently using copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> What legal reasoning would allow a business like yours to use copyrighted material without first obtaining the right to do so from the copyright holder?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Would you copy, post an image of Mickey Mouse without first obtaining permission from Disney?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I realize this could be a tough question.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Thanks for your consideration,<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Sam<o:p></o:p>
Lets see if they have a real answer, a fuzzy wuzzy answer, or no answer.
I participate in the photography forum, Digital Grin, and we have a bit of a disagreement there involving your site, as well as others, and I am seeking your input to this discussion.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Currently you, and others, post images from various websites to your site without any approval from the image owner’s. There seems to one group who like this, and others who don’t.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> It really doesn’t matter what my likes or dislikes are, or what my position is with regard to this issue. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I have a very simple question, which no one seems able to answer.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Premise: Photography.com, (and others to be fair), are currently using copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> What legal reasoning would allow a business like yours to use copyrighted material without first obtaining the right to do so from the copyright holder?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Would you copy, post an image of Mickey Mouse without first obtaining permission from Disney?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I realize this could be a tough question.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Thanks for your consideration,<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Sam<o:p></o:p>
Sam, I don't think you're going to get anywhere. According to courts in the US, that is fair use unless you've used means to stop it in the meta tags. See my previous post.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
He can SmugIslands set to "no" and make the galleries private, and remove his "stock photography" keywords
I have asked a simple question! What is the legal principle here that would allow these companies to use copyrighted material without first obtaining approval from the copyright holder? Can anyone answer this?
I'd say this is a question for a Lawyer, or for photography.com.
From SmugMug's perspective, we take this sort of thing very seriously, and that's why we spent a huge amount of time, money and energy to put the choice in the account holder's hands: Be found by the search engines, or not. Be found within SmugMug, or not. Or multiple combinations of the two. Or, have your whole site blocked, but override that setting in just one gallery, if you wish. And so on.
Thanks for your well thought out answer!! Your the only person so far that has advanced a legal premise.
I thought about fair use, but believe, at least as I sit here tonight, this it really shouldn't apply here. Now that doesn't mean that some judge won't decide otherwise.
My reasoning is pretty simple. The image is being used on a for profit site without any approval. The part about being a thumbnail, or 10 feet high has no bearing on the subject of copyrights.
I use Mickey Mouse as an example because he, and Disney are well known and recognized.
Again besides a few billion dollars, Disney and I are on equal legal footing. Micky is copyrighted, my images are copyrighted.
If you couldn't use Mickey, you can't use my photos.
As you can see I sent the question to Photography.com so we can see if they are willing the provide an answer or not.
Just to set the rcord straight. I have NO issue with Smugmug at all, and whatever the outcome I believe Smugmug has NO culpability with regard to others copyng, posting linking etc.
We all know how seriously Smugmug takes copyright, and use issues, and thier customers. Amen
I don't know when this insane (yes insane) opt out mentality took over. Just because you left the door open doesn't mean it's ok to enter, and take what you want.
Thanks for your well thought out answer!! Your the only person so far that has advanced a legal premise.
I thought about fair use, but believe, at least as I sit here tonight, this it really shouldn't apply here. Now that doesn't mean that some judge won't decide otherwise.
But a judge (actually many judges) have already decided otherwise. I quote from one of the articles I linked to you:
In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., holding that a search engine's online display of "thumbnail" images was a fair use of copyright protected work. More recently, a U.S. district court considered an Internet search engine's caching, linking, and the display of thumbnails in a context other than that approved in Kelly. In Field v. Google, the district court found that Google's system of displaying cached images did not infringe the content owner's copyright. And in Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com Inc., the Ninth Circuit revisited and expanded upon its holding in Kelly, finding that a search engine's use of thumbnail images and practice of in-line linking, framing, and caching were not infringing.
My reasoning is pretty simple. The image is being used on a for profit site without any approval. The part about being a thumbnail, or 10 feet high has no bearing on the subject of copyrights.
the courts disagree with you. Thumbnails fall under fair use.
I use Mickey Mouse as an example because he, and Disney are well known and recognized.
Again besides a few billion dollars, Disney and I are on equal legal footing. Micky is copyrighted, my images are copyrighted.
If you couldn't use Mickey, you can't use my photos.
Sam
You can use mickey, http://skitch.com/mikelane/rrim/mickey-mouse-google-image-search. Copyrighted or no, according to the courts (and thus, US Law) unless you opt out (like it or not) your image thumbnails are fair game. This is something you could take to court but the precedent has already been set so you'd likely lose.
Unless you went to a belgian or possibly austrialian court.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
the courts disagree with you. Thumbnails fall under fair use.
Soooo...i can legally market and make money from andys thumbnails once ive stolen them ? Or perhaps i can reduce some of Ansel Adams stuff & sell it via a public SmugMug gallery from your reasoning as long as i keep them postage stamp size...correct ?
Soooo...i can legally market and make money from andys thumbnails once ive stolen them ? Or perhaps i can reduce some of Ansel Adams stuff & sell it via a public SmugMug gallery from your reasoning as long as i keep them postage stamp size...correct ?
That would not be fair use. There are some fine lines in these arguements and you are blurring them all together. Copyright law is not an all-or-nothing law.
Soooo...i can legally market and make money from andys thumbnails once ive stolen them ? Or perhaps i can reduce some of Ansel Adams stuff & sell it via a public SmugMug gallery from your reasoning as long as i keep them postage stamp size...correct ?
Nope. You can scour the net for images and pull thumbnails of those images from sites that don't explicitly tell you not to and then use those thumbnails to link back to the site in question.
Neither Google nor photography.com (nor yahoo nor ask.com nor any of the other 10 bajillion search engine sites out there) are selling thumbnails of your images. They are selling ads alongside the thumbs, but not the thumbs themselves.
Oh, and it's not my reasoning, thanks.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
I read the decision by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
WOW!!! I have never read so much inconsistant non linier thinking in my life!
The first decision actually rulled against the photographer with regard to the web based company using full size images! Not to fear a mear tens of thousands of dollars later that part was over turned.
But you should know the 9th court has been overturned more times than a pancake at a flipping contest, so it ain't over yet. At least while there could be more money to get from litigants.
You are right though, the court did rule that this is fair use. The reasoning behind the decision is pretty convoluted, but that doesn't really matter, unless you got lots of money..........
What's quite interesting to me, of my images on photography.com, it doesn't look like a random thing at all. It looks as though someone (!!) has taken some really specific images from various galleries, the most popular being pretty girls taken in Istanbul...
I'm with Andy here though, the extra exposure is great
You guys can colour it any way you want. At the end of the day..someone is using something of mine to make money & before i get the 20 answers telling me its an elixsure & to embrace it ...i dont need nor want my photography to make money, thats not what its all about for me. If that was so i would most certainly be in a soup line at this very moment (like a most of you also).
BTW andy...i havnt got my nickers in a not over it, to be honest i find it mildly annoying at worst...im smart enough to understand what this crap costs to chase down and halt on the net.
I'm somewhat confused about this thread at ALL !
I checked my account/ID/anything and found : No posts found. Try a different search?
I found several of mine & quite ordinary they were too. strange stuff to me. Im surprised that people from this board found quite a few of theirs..maybe they harvest in here
I found several of mine & quite ordinary they were too. strange stuff to me. Im surprised that people from this board found quite a few of theirs..maybe they harvest in here
I normally don't put Tags or Keywords on my shots.
When I ran a search for me, it came back with 13 shots.
I have over 1800 shots on Smugmug.
I have about 1,000 thumbs showing up on photography.com (searched for 'fiatsurf') and what's interesting is that it looks like someone removed/edited out the watermarks for the first 75 shots or so but after that looks like they gave up. I watermark all my thumbs on SmugMug. Haven't checked them all yet to see if they've taken any of mine from private galleries or not.
Comments
The skins on the Digital Grin forums automatically adapt the color of the text to make them readable in the selected skin (user selectable near the bottom of the page).
The automatic color selection is overridden if a specific color is assigned to text by the person who posts it.
Sam posts a lot of the posts with the a color assigned to it. It happens to be the color that is the same used on the default skin, so most will not notice anything.
However, the person who uses a non-default skin will notice it though, as the text is not adapted for the skin anymore and is now displaying a text-color that can be hard to read on the background for the selected skin.
Makes sense?
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
See ivar's post above
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Im going to take a photo from your site 'moon river photography' without asking you & do something with it. What im going to do with it is out of your control & im not going to tell you either.
You totally cool with that then ? Tell you what mate...im bloody well not thats for sure.
But if you put a thumbnail image on your wall, and link it back to my site, that's okay with me
I'll say it again - if you don't want your images indexed and found, then shut them off with SmugIslands. And shut external links off. And put a watermark on everything.
Choice is good
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
They have put an image of mine without permisson on their web site & they are a company that profits from this. Its just that simple. If i copy their company logo/name & put it on my web page & make money from that web page (but link it back to them) i bet they will react like a 2 year old at a lollie counter. They would call that stealing.
Let me get this straight
to this photo that you have in a public gallery, and have put in the caption, stock photography, and all sorts of keywords:
I think you should take legal action with them. And Google. And Yahoo. And all the other places that have links to your photography.
Or this link from Google's Cache
Go get 'em, Gus!
In the meantime, if you want out of the Search Engines use SmugIslands
EDIT: PS, Pixsy's got your stuff indexed, too:
http://www.pixsy.com/search.aspx?q=brisbane
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
<o:p></o:p>
Andy, and others here like having whoever / whatever web sites post their copyrighted images, and don't feel there is any necessity to give approval or set terms. Fine.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Gus on the other hand doesn't like this unilateral arrangement, and would like them to not do this. No he doesn't want to jump through hoops to Opt Out! Fine.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Why doesn't Gus get what he wants? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I understand the people’s position that they like this. I understand Gus’s position. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
So far I have heard, uh, shuffle shuffle, eyes rolling, Golem like chants of we likes it, precious, precious, if you don’t like it go jump through hoops, and alter your life, sacrilege, heretic, if your not with the herd your against it. Yes, yes, I have paraphrased a little.
<o:p></o:p>
I have asked a VERY VERY simple question! What is the legal principle here that would allow these companies to use copyrighted material without first obtaining approval from the copyright holder? Can anyone answer this?
Sam<o:p></o:p>
I'm not against search engines like Google or photography.com, really...but I do like Sam's question. It's an interesting subject (for me anyways). I know that the search engines are linking back to our site. The site is copyright-'protected'. But does that make the link protected? It's a rhetorical question, maybe a stupid one... But ANYONE can post a link anywhere and there's not much we can do to stop it. So here's another question. Obviously having images linking back to their site bothers some people...so would they feel better if it was just a text link? Is it the image being there that bothers them? I'm honestly just curious.
Gallery of mine...caution, it's under CONSTANT construction! | Photo Journal
In the right light, at the right time, everything is extraordinary. ~Aaron Rose
My assumption, Sam, is that you are a US citizen. As such, if my research is right, you don't have much of any legal recourse as caching, indexing, linking, and displaying thumbnails in a fashion you do not consent to has apparently been deemed fair use unless you take steps to prevent search engines from crawling your site.
Guess what, SmugMug gives you that option easily with the SmugIslands feature. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/deal.gif" border="0" alt="" >
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Lets see if they have a real answer, a fuzzy wuzzy answer, or no answer.
I participate in the photography forum, Digital Grin, and we have a bit of a disagreement there involving your site, as well as others, and I am seeking your input to this discussion.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Currently you, and others, post images from various websites to your site without any approval from the image owner’s. There seems to one group who like this, and others who don’t.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It really doesn’t matter what my likes or dislikes are, or what my position is with regard to this issue. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I have a very simple question, which no one seems able to answer.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Premise: Photography.com, (and others to be fair), are currently using copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
What legal reasoning would allow a business like yours to use copyrighted material without first obtaining the right to do so from the copyright holder?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Would you copy, post an image of Mickey Mouse without first obtaining permission from Disney?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I realize this could be a tough question.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Thanks for your consideration,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Sam<o:p></o:p>
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I'd say this is a question for a Lawyer, or for photography.com.
From SmugMug's perspective, we take this sort of thing very seriously, and that's why we spent a huge amount of time, money and energy to put the choice in the account holder's hands: Be found by the search engines, or not. Be found within SmugMug, or not. Or multiple combinations of the two. Or, have your whole site blocked, but override that setting in just one gallery, if you wish. And so on.
SmugIslands.
EDIT: PS, I love this debate, I find it fascinating. Thanks for participating, everyone!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Thanks for your well thought out answer!! Your the only person so far that has advanced a legal premise.
I thought about fair use, but believe, at least as I sit here tonight, this it really shouldn't apply here. Now that doesn't mean that some judge won't decide otherwise.
My reasoning is pretty simple. The image is being used on a for profit site without any approval. The part about being a thumbnail, or 10 feet high has no bearing on the subject of copyrights.
I use Mickey Mouse as an example because he, and Disney are well known and recognized.
Again besides a few billion dollars, Disney and I are on equal legal footing. Micky is copyrighted, my images are copyrighted.
If you couldn't use Mickey, you can't use my photos.
Sam
As you can see I sent the question to Photography.com so we can see if they are willing the provide an answer or not.
Just to set the rcord straight. I have NO issue with Smugmug at all, and whatever the outcome I believe Smugmug has NO culpability with regard to others copyng, posting linking etc.
We all know how seriously Smugmug takes copyright, and use issues, and thier customers. Amen
I don't know when this insane (yes insane) opt out mentality took over. Just because you left the door open doesn't mean it's ok to enter, and take what you want.
Sam
the courts disagree with you. Thumbnails fall under fair use.
You can use mickey, http://skitch.com/mikelane/rrim/mickey-mouse-google-image-search. Copyrighted or no, according to the courts (and thus, US Law) unless you opt out (like it or not) your image thumbnails are fair game. This is something you could take to court but the precedent has already been set so you'd likely lose.
Unless you went to a belgian or possibly austrialian court.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
That would not be fair use. There are some fine lines in these arguements and you are blurring them all together. Copyright law is not an all-or-nothing law.
My photos
"The future is an illusion, but a damned handy one." - David Allen
Neither Google nor photography.com (nor yahoo nor ask.com nor any of the other 10 bajillion search engine sites out there) are selling thumbnails of your images. They are selling ads alongside the thumbs, but not the thumbs themselves.
Oh, and it's not my reasoning, thanks.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Thanks again for your factual response.
I read the decision by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
WOW!!! I have never read so much inconsistant non linier thinking in my life!
The first decision actually rulled against the photographer with regard to the web based company using full size images! Not to fear a mear tens of thousands of dollars later that part was over turned.
But you should know the 9th court has been overturned more times than a pancake at a flipping contest, so it ain't over yet. At least while there could be more money to get from litigants.
You are right though, the court did rule that this is fair use. The reasoning behind the decision is pretty convoluted, but that doesn't really matter, unless you got lots of money..........
Sam
I'm with Andy here though, the extra exposure is great
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers
BTW andy...i havnt got my nickers in a not over it, to be honest i find it mildly annoying at worst...im smart enough to understand what this crap costs to chase down and halt on the net.
I checked my account/ID/anything and found :
No posts found. Try a different search?
XTi, G9, 16-35/2.8L, 100-300USM, 70-200/4L, 19-35, 580EX II, CP-E3, 500/8 ...
DSC-R1, HFL-F32X ... ; AG-DVX100B and stuff ... (I like this 10 years old signature :^)
I normally don't put Tags or Keywords on my shots.
When I ran a search for me, it came back with 13 shots.
I have over 1800 shots on Smugmug.
I think if you use keywords, it finds you.
This is just a guess.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
They don't use your photos !!!
It's just photo links sharing site !
You can read incoming quest info from your pics storage serwer,
but nothing more.
There is no real wheresdavid poster there
Just sleep well and enjoy popularity
XTi, G9, 16-35/2.8L, 100-300USM, 70-200/4L, 19-35, 580EX II, CP-E3, 500/8 ...
DSC-R1, HFL-F32X ... ; AG-DVX100B and stuff ... (I like this 10 years old signature :^)
Toby
But they are just links, nothing more.
Removed watermarks - it may be a legal case !!!
XTi, G9, 16-35/2.8L, 100-300USM, 70-200/4L, 19-35, 580EX II, CP-E3, 500/8 ...
DSC-R1, HFL-F32X ... ; AG-DVX100B and stuff ... (I like this 10 years old signature :^)